- #12,201
NUCENG
Science Advisor
- 914
- 0
You may be right. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how do you make those estimates? What do you know anout the focal length and distance from the lens?
You may be right. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how do you make those estimates? What do you know anout the focal length and distance from the lens?Sorry, I can't do it as it seems :-( The trick requires plenty (hundreds) of frames about the same view, and - due the spherical distortion of the cam - from the same position. There isn't enough of this kind of frame series in the released videos. Even small movements are problematic, because the noise prevents any automated alignment algorithm to be effective.
There will be only a dozen 'enhanced' picture soon, but most of them from different viewpoints. They will not fit for a mosaic.
About the scale: what's illuminated there is close to the cam. This can give a hint. I think the yellowish tubes are ~ 1 inch, the brown packed ones maybe 2 inch in diameter.
If you take a ruler, the other support structure or pipe, more dark, is curved as well, but in the opposite direction, so either it's the lens as you said, or we are watching the side of the RPV and so it is really curved (I'm no expert to say that), or (but I believe less) they deformed.If you are referring to its slightly curved appearance in that image, I think we'd need to take into strong account the possibility of slight image deformation caused but the lens setup of the endoscope.
I don't know anything about the cam itself. But there are plenty of hints on the pictures:You may be right. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how do you make those estimates? What do you know anout the focal length and distance from the lens?
Those lens has some brutal spherical distortion. If you check those tubes as the cam moves, they bend differently on every frame. That's why I couldn't easily stack together enough frames to average out the noise.If you are referring to its slightly curved appearance in that image, I think we'd need to take into strong account the possibility of slight image deformation caused but the lens setup of the endoscope.
Wet rust is brilliant, that's OK. But melted... I don't think. There is a concrete wall between the cam and the bottom of the RPV, so I don't expect to find any melted object.However, what drew my attention was the brownish spot. From the shadow it looks as if the side of the support is broken, either rusted (but isn't it too brilliant for being rust?) or melted
I checked the weather for then, and the radiation spiked occurred during a time when it was snowing in Tsukuba, AND the wind was blowing straight from Fukushima Daiichi. (By the way, the radiation started to rise before the earthquake, so that is probably not the cause. And the radiation stopped when the snow stopped.) Similar to previous spikes associated with precipitation and wind coming from F1.
Interesting analysis. I suppose it's possible that the melted fuel is liberating radon into the water which is being carried out of containment and being released into the air, but I would also wonder if the same effect is visible with snowfalls with the wind in other directions. Maybe this is just within the bounds of a normal precipitation effect.Someone in Tokyo also apparently saw a rise there (further downwind from Tsukuba), did an isotope analysis, and found it was Lead-214 and Bismuth-214 -- radon daughter products. Obviously they weren't kicked up out of the ground (it was snow this time, not rain), but apparently swept out of the air.
Seems nothing to worry about, but kind of curious -- is it possible that the big pile(s) of scrap uranium at Fukushima Daiichi is serving as a giant radon source? Just from decay of the exposed uranium.
I am not sure what this means and where it comes from. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid statements around on the Enenews page, so it is neither a reliable source of information nor a big help to me...
The radon could escape directly to the atmosphere from the holes in containment (the ones from which the steam was coming last year), couldn't it?Interesting analysis. I suppose it's possible that the melted fuel is liberating radon into the water which is being carried out of containment and being released into the air,
Could be, though there have been plenty of rain events in the past year without any associated spike in radiation. The spikes only seem to be associated with being downwind of F1, at least the ones that I have checked in the past.but I would also wonder if the same effect is visible with snowfalls with the wind in other directions. Maybe this is just within the bounds of a normal precipitation effect.
To make an atomic bomb:Sorry for the off-topic, but what were the applications of uranium at the time of that "old uranium mine (from the war)" in Fukushima prefecture ?
After doing some more research, it turns out there are several radon onsens dotted around the eastern half of Fukushima prefecture, including one in Hirono, about 20 km south of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. So, there are likely to be uranium ores distributed over a rather wide area in the ground. In fact, there is even a radon onsen in Mito in Ibaraki prefecture, much closer to Tsukuba than anywhere in Fukushima, and also upwind of it that day.The other possibility that occurs to me is that there is also an old uranium mine (from the war) in Fukushima near the airport, and there is also a radon onsen near there, so maybe it is possible the wind blew some radon from there instead. Not as directly upstream of Tsukuba as F1 was at the time of the spike, but not completely out of the stream either. I'll post some wind maps later to show what I mean.
This document features diagrams that go a long way to answering the questions of orientation of the endoscope:Some more pictures.
Ps.: don't ask about the orientation...
Their mid-term goal is not to reduce water levels but to keep them stable : "based on the view of limiting inflow of underwater to buildings and reducing the amount of emerged accumulated water, we are planning to transfer accumulated water keeping its level in the building below OP. 3,000 considering water tank capacity." : http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120125e5.pdfNews seem to dry up, but there should be some activity.
For example, what's the status of basement water level reductions? How many tons are still there?
On http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/111221e14.pdf page 42/94, "Target：Complete Switch to Water Withdrawal from Reactor Building (or lower part of PCV)" is set for mid-fiscal year 2015. There is also "(HP1-1): Completion of stopping inter-building water leakage between reactor and turbine buildings and repairing lower part of the PCV" which is planned for the middle of phase 2 around 2017. On page 48/94 you can see that "R&D for PCV Leakage Point Survey/ Repairs (including stopping inter-building water leakage)" is scheduled for fiscal years 2012-2013-2014 including "Design, Manufacture and Test, etc. of PCV Leakage Point Survey Equipment ②" and "Design, Manufacture and Test, etc. of PCV Repair Equipment ③⑥", with "Investigation of Leakage Points (including field test of R&D results)" starting in mid fiscal year 2014.The plan was to seal off reactor building basements, to at least stop leaking into turbine buildings and further into the ground. Is there progress?
Uhhh... that's an awful lot of water. The influx is so large? Why?Afaik, the JAIF provides the best ongoing summary of the situation on its web site.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/
It indicates some 200,000 cubic meters of water have been treated, but the ongoing influx of groundwater means 80,000 cubic meters remain in the facility continually.
Did it occur to TEPCO to drill a few dozen drainage wells and pump them out?the larger issue of sealing off the entire site from groundwater has yet to be tackled. It is not happening imho because it would be a monster job whose utility could be destroyed in an instant by another small earthquake.
Somehow I think local farmers won't be happy either. In fact, dumping this very slightly contaminated water into the ocean is the best idea. If this will not be allowed, is it economical to distillate it once more?The cleaned water probably will eventually be used as irrigation water, as the idea of dumping it into the ocean has encountered objections by the local fisheries.
IIRC the remaining contamination is partly Tritium, which cannot be removed easily....is it economical to distillate it once more?
To prevent further contamination outside the containment they prefer water flowing in. This way they will have to deal with some more water: the other way would mean awful lot of contaminated ground beneath the buildings.Did it occur to TEPCO to drill a few dozen drainage wells and pump them out?